Comments on: Earthquake risk to U.S. nuke plants higher than thoughthttp://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41832
The oldest political news site on the InternetTue, 31 Mar 2015 20:36:48 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Carl Nemo **==http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41832/comment-page-1#comment-173760
Sat, 03 Sep 2011 08:13:34 +0000http://www.capitolhillblue.com/?p=41832#comment-173760I posted an article back in March of this year on CHB concerning Thorium reactors.

Readers might enjoy the article along with reader comments and the supplied links concerning this “Green Nuke Technology”.

]]>By: b mcclellanhttp://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41832/comment-page-1#comment-173754
Sat, 03 Sep 2011 03:12:31 +0000http://www.capitolhillblue.com/?p=41832#comment-173754Two safety cushions please.
Mother Nature can glow all by herself without further help from pis-ants ripping her blankets off in futility.
Kill a mountain for ore, kill a way of life, drill a hole in a mountain lose a miner. Tough choices abound, men given to respect are heretofore fleeting. . Link it Al together,IABSMS.
]]>By: Jeffrey Kinghttp://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41832/comment-page-1#comment-173753
Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:11:16 +0000http://www.capitolhillblue.com/?p=41832#comment-173753Is this an accurate statement?

From the article above:

“The nuclear industry says last week’s quake proved reactors are robust. When the rumbling knocked out off-site power to the North Anna plant in Mineral, Va., the reactors shut down and cooled successfully, and the plant’s four locomotive-sized diesel generators turned on.”

What are the odds that the site chosen is the epicenter of the quake?

I’m glad the latest version of experts have put numbers into the evaluation. 24 times greater than 0? San Andreas defies logic, then and forever.

]]>By: Carl Nemo **==http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41832/comment-page-1#comment-173737
Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:00:45 +0000http://www.capitolhillblue.com/?p=41832#comment-173737We’re in the grip of a uranium based nuclear industry that needs to be converted to thorium driven reactors whose byproducts don’t end up as the horribly toxic U239 (Plutonium) the most deadly substance known to man in terms of toxicity as a function of dosage.

Another tragedy is that a number of current reactors are using MOX fuel which is a mix of nuclear oxides, plutonium (U239) being one of them which kicks the related hazards of a meltdown up exponentially. The industry is trying to integrate plutonium into the reactor fuel in order to deplete the large supply of this element from the process of decommissioning nuclear weapons including that of Russia our former cold war enemy. It may be well intentioned, but not thought out well in terms of the consequences as function of a meltdown as in Japan and possibly other locations in the future.

***

MOX fuel, is nuclear fuel that contains more than one oxide of fissile material. MOX fuel contains plutonium blended with natural uranium oxides, reprocessed uranium, or depleted uranium. MOX fuel is an alternative to the low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel used in the light water reactors that predominate nuclear power generation. For example, a mixture of 7% plutonium and 93% uranium reacts similarly, although not identically, to LEU fuel. …extract from Wiki

***

A thorium based reactor is an absolutely elegant way to produce electricity without the extreme hazards of long term nuclear waste and meltdowns. The reason we didn’t go that route from the beginning is that the “cold war” mandated the production of weapons grade plutonium for our nuclear arsenal.

Here’a Wiki link concerning Thorium and for those that wish to educate themselves futher simply fetch thorium reactors on the www.

This is a technology that needs to be brought on line asap with older uranium based fuel cycle plants phased out. If and when fusion powered plants come on line. the thorium based one’s can function along with them until they too are phased out, but with the luxury of keeping them online as long as necessary due to their extremely low hazard profile and threat of a “meltdown”.

Carl Nemo **==

]]>By: griffhttp://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41832/comment-page-1#comment-173734
Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:38:19 +0000http://www.capitolhillblue.com/?p=41832#comment-173734Hmmm…So why didn’t they build them to withstand a stronger quake in the first place? When it comes to nuclear power plants, you would think they would have built them to withstaand the strongest possible earthquake, not just the magnitude earthquake they assumed it would have to survive.
]]>By: Almandinehttp://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41832/comment-page-1#comment-173729
Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:29:28 +0000http://www.capitolhillblue.com/?p=41832#comment-173729http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/08/21/ny-times-large-areas-japan-declared-indefinitely-uninhabitable-decades-62051/
]]>By: Sandunehttp://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41832/comment-page-1#comment-173727
Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:17:14 +0000http://www.capitolhillblue.com/?p=41832#comment-173727Being born and raised on the San Andreas Fault I can tell you that California should not have built the Nuclear facility at San Diego’s San Onofre or the Avila Beach, Diablo. There were a lot of demonstrations against both facilities.